I’m always on the lookout for neat aphorisms that nicely encapsulate important points of Libertarian thought. This is because I think Libertarianism argues from a weak position in modern society. There aren’t very many of us to begin with, and our views are rarely, if ever, given a fair hearing in the public forum, so anything that can get the point across sucintly is helpful.
Today I came across a true gem - from hacker Eric S. Raymond via the EconTalk Podcast.
Love doesn’t scale.
What a great way to put it!
Raymond was saying this as a reaction to one of Walter Williams’ favorite rhetorical questions, which goes something like this. We live in the city, and we have to eat, but we can’t produce our own food on the limited space we have in the city, so we absolutely depend on farmers to keep us fed. Do you want to bet your survival on the farmer who brings you chickens because he “loves mankind,” or do you want to bet your survival on the guy who brings you chickens out of a profit motive? Obviously, the guy who does it for money is more reliable: your future is solid with Capitalism.
The reason I like the way Eric Raymond puts it a lot better than Walter Williams’ already useful analogy - aside from how beautifully concise it is, I mean - is that Raymond’s version makes it clear that the issue isn’t a defect in love but a problem of perspective. If the guy bringing you the chickens is your dad, then love is probably a lot more reliable than money. You can’t always count on employment, but you can damn well count on your dad to care about your survival. So it isn’t that there’s anything wrong with love per se, it’s just that there’s something wrong with love on a large scale. We classical liberals get a bad rap for being heartless - but it’s just because we understand this and everyone else doesn’t. Washington doesn’t love me, Washington can’t love me, Washington shouldn’t love me, and you know what? I don’t even want it to try. I don’t give two figs about any politician’s professed “concern” for “the people” or any of that jazz because I know that love doesn’t work that way. It’s piss poor motivation for keeping the trains running (pace The Doobie Brothers), and it just isn’t the kind of thing that any person can feel for millions of people.
I think a lot of political confusion can be traced to the mistaken idea that love scales. It doesn’t.
I don’t fully agree, because I believe that heaven exists. But in a fallen world, we can’t trust that every one who claims to be motivated by love for us isn’t a hypocrite. It certainly makes more sense to always ask, what’s in it for him?
Comment by AST — February 23, 2009 @ 1:16 am
I heard same podcast and also was quite taken with that brilliantly-worded observation, but I was out walking with my iPod, so I’m glad you’ve reminded me. I wonder if that was totally off the cuff or had Raymond already been using that language.
Comment by Kevin — February 23, 2009 @ 1:18 am
Ooooh, so that’s what it means.
Comment by boure — February 23, 2009 @ 3:29 am
It’s fantastic … and also explains why you shouldn’t get married if you’re a man in American society.
Love also doesn’t scale when women have complete freedom to make modern-day indentured servants out of their husbands by merely saying “I divorce you.”
Comment by wonderer — February 23, 2009 @ 3:43 am
Love scales, but only micro, not macro. For example, I love my third child just as much as the first, I love my girlfriend just ass much as my wife. But macro wise, I love my RedSox, but the rest of you can fuggetabout it!
Comment by Bill — February 23, 2009 @ 5:16 am
Glad you cleared that up–I didn’t get the meaning at first. Very interesting point; makes perfect sense to me. So then what does this say of people who obsess with (apparently) heartfelt concern for people they do not know? Are they delusional–is there some other motivation that they do not recognize?
Comment by archangel of war — February 23, 2009 @ 8:34 am
“…what does this say of people who obsess with (apparently) heartfelt concern for people they do not know? Are they delusional–is there some other motivation that they do not recognize?
Altruism, Archangel. A most corrupt and malevolent “value”. See “Capitalism - the Unknown Ideal” by Rand.
Comment by Tom Crisp — February 23, 2009 @ 9:13 am
> So then what does this say of people who obsess with (apparently) heartfelt concern for people they do not know? Are they delusional–is there some other motivation that they do not recognize?
Look at how they behave. Some behave as if they care while others don’t.
Note that delusional isn’t the only possible explanation - deceptive seems to be at least as common.
And then there’s the problem that even if they’re sincere and behave that way, what is the result?
Also, there may be someone in DC who loves me, but their effects are swamped by those who don’t.
Comment by Andy Freeman — February 23, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Anyone who claims love does scale — e.g., that the same word refers to what he feels for his son and what he feels for some random bum who is the recipient of his charity — simply does not know the meaning of the word. Such a person must be so repressed that I can’t help but feel sorry for his so-called “loved ones”.
Comment by Dana H. — February 23, 2009 @ 10:58 am
I will admit it is cute and concise. But as Archangel’s confusion indicates it lacks clarity. Out of context it just does not infer the economics of the meaning and could be construed as something else entirely.
What’s worse, by withdrawing the economic context, the saying still works. Fact fabulously so. In a biological context Love is the glue that holds the human family unit together. To be useful in the evolutionary sense, Love would NOT be intended to scale. Just the opposite.
Comment by JohnMc — February 23, 2009 @ 11:53 am
It’s a great line but it is a little too concise. As many have noted above, it isn’t clear without context exactly what Raymond was getting at. A better catch line would be, “Socialism doesn’t work because love doesn’t scale.” Not as concise, but it providing necessary context. Still a little awkward, though. Others might want to try to improve it further.
Comment by JackOfClubs — February 23, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
[...] trampled by overweening government is going to require inculcating in the culture the notion that love doesn’t scale, and people need to solve their own problems rather than using government to steal from their [...]
Pingback by Attractive Nuisance » Blog Archive » The PAYGO Scam — February 24, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
[...] “improved” upon with my arrogant words. Therefore, I bring you the words of Joshua from The Only Willing Move: I’m always on the lookout for neat aphorisms that nicely encapsulate important points of [...]
Pingback by Love doesn’t scale. | in medias res — May 5, 2009 @ 1:26 am
[...] Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, permit me to reveal to you a nugget of transcendental Truth: love does not scale. Your mother loves you. Your father loves you. Your children, if any, love you. Your [...]
Pingback by Attractive Nuisance » Blog Archive » One Good Rant Deserves Another — September 4, 2009 @ 2:54 pm